Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

System recommendations for BF1942

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 18, 2002 9:44:53 PM

Mostly this concerns running BF1942. I have the following:
Athlon XP 1700+
Gigabyte GA-7VTXH (VIA KT266A)
512 MB PC2100
Maxtor 40GB 5400 RPM 2mb Cache
nVidia GeForce3 Ti200
Win XP (not SP1, but all other updates and latest drivers)

All previous games I've had I've been able to run at all the best video options, including RTCW, which I run at 1600x1200. They play exeptionally well. With BF1942 I'm forced to run at 640x480 with practically low everything just to move around.

Single player is vitually impossible with more than a few bots, as the system gets very bogged down. However, the SP Demo played fine up to 800x600.

I've also noticed that my system in general has slowed down somewhat - XP has gotten "crufty" I believe is the technical term - in it's nearly one year of existence.

Does BF1942 truly need the latest and greatest stuff to be fun, or do I need to re-install XP (UGH)? I have a friend with an XP 2000+, 1GB PC2700, ASUS A7V333, nVidia GeForce4 Ti4600, WD1200JB and his system screams through this game at the higher resolutions. Also, can you re-install XP w/o having to re-install everything else? You know, just drop in the CD and hit Setup? I have a "fearful" respect for all things Windows.

Do you think there is any one particular bottleneck (video card, HD, memory, etc.)? Upgrading my PC for the sake of one game (although it is a dandy) when it does everything else I ask of it just fine bothers me just a little.

Thanks
November 19, 2002 3:55:27 PM

nah I think you got a problem somewhere. Something is tying you up. Your system is well above minimum requirements for that game. I run that game with medium settings and 800x600 and run smooth. Sometimes I drop to about 15-20 fps but its rare. My rig is an athlon XP 1600, 512mb PC133, voodoo 4. If I do ok with that setup then you should do much better at even 1280x1024 resolutions or more.

I would look for the newest game patches (1.1 has been out but 1.2 is due to release any day, it was delayed cuz they are releasing an Expansion Pack) and make sure your driver is up to date. Also see what other things may be open while you are playing. Turn off any virus scanners and disk utilities. Make sure you have full hardware acceleration with your vid card. Take a look at your performance monitor and task manager (alt+ctrl+del) and see what's going on and what may be taking up system processing time.

For the in game settings:
Set your resolution to 800x600 for a start. Chnage color mode to 16bit instead of 32.
Set the texture/effect/graphic quality to medium

Try to run the game and see how well it performs. You should see very little chop or no chop, especially in Single Player. Try that for now.
November 19, 2002 5:59:01 PM

dakels,

Well, you're right, I definitely had a problem somewhere. Windows was "crufty" (type crufty in google for a definition) as I mentioned in my first post. I installed XP SP1, and it plays much better. I had everything either turned off or at the lowest settings to play it. 1600x1200 is as playable now as 640x480 was before, but it still chops a bit. So I've settled for 1024x768 (oddly enough, there isn't a setting for 1280x1024) and it's great, now I can actually see people to shoot!!!

Thanks for your help. Seriously though, if anyone has a good idea of what components are relatively important for games like this, I think it would be helpful to share that info with all.
Related resources
November 19, 2002 7:14:40 PM

glad you resolved it. I guess it's not as "crufty" as you thought :p 

Anywhoo if you are still looking for what hardware upgrades are the most effective:

CPU speed is very important, but most of the times, and as in the case with yours, a video card will be the biggest amount of difference without getting a new computer. Your bottleneck is the aging Ti200 video card.

Upgrading your machine to a Ti4200 or 4400-4600, or Radeon 9700 video card would <b>drastically</b> improve the performance of this game and others on your comp.

The 4200's are the best bargain and range from $140-190, the 4400-4600's are slightly faster and cost about $190-280. The Radeon 9700 Pro is the fastest out there but will hit your wallet for a hefty $320-350. The performance difference is not all that astounding either.

The new NV30 (Geforce FX) cards will be announced at Comdex. I'd hold up for a few weeks to see if the current video card prices drop a bit due to the announcement.

I'm probably going to get a Gainward golden version 4600, but the <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=&submit=..." target="_new">leadtek 4400</A> is a great deal right now at newegg. The 4400 is the 3rd best consumer video card on the market right now.
November 19, 2002 7:53:25 PM

Might I ask....

I have a GeForce2 Pro and a 1 Ghz T-bird and this game looks like complete crap. I played it for 20 minutes before declaring it the biggest dissapointment ever.

Does it really look that good? When I compare to a game like Medal of Honor, BF1942 looks completely pathetic on my rig.

Is it me or is this game really overhyped? Or does it require a new card to look good?

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A></font color=red>
November 20, 2002 4:21:52 AM

i have a 1.0 GHz Tb athlon, with gf2 MX and i run the game almost perfectly at 1024x768, so you don't need a godly card to run it good. All graphics settings are default except texture detail, i boosted one notch. In my opinion it looks pretty good, maybe not *quite* as good as MOHAA, but still really good.
November 21, 2002 2:43:50 AM

Im running it with a g4 and it looks very nice.... HUGE levels... id say its definately your card.

....the crows seemed to be calling him, thought caw....
!